Until I came up with better ways, I had a filter that deleted all email that didn't include "digdug" or "notspam" in the subject. I doubt this would slide in court though...
--
Re:And if this article has anything to say about i
on
Privacy vs. Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
It seems to be down:
Internet JUNKBUSTER TCP connection to 'news.cnet.com' failed: Bad file descriptor.
I like Google, but here is an even better search engine. http://www.hotbot.com/text/. No images, except for the banner on the search results page. Nothing extra, but a ton of options.
Actually, anonymity and privacy have very little to do with each other. You needn't be anonymous to be private, because noone sees you in the first place if you're private. But anonymity is required for truly free speech -- I don't think that I have to explain why.
I do know that - I just find it a bit easier to see when it's dblue/white on white/black instead of white/dblue on white/black. I do find it a bit harder to select text in Netscape.
Whew, I finally found an article where I could post this.
Is it just me, or does something have to be done about the black background?! It makes selecting text in Netscape hellish, because Netscape thinks the text is sitting on black background (when it is actually sitting on the white table.)
Here is what you tell people that don't understand what the DMCA is all about and why it's bad.
All laws are supposed to exist to make the peoples' lives better, usually by protecting their rights. If it helps corporations as well -- good -- but that is not the primary objective. The copyright laws were put into effect to encourage corporations and artists to provide more works of art for the people. The DMCA helps corporations at the expense of the people. Any questions?
The web designer has read the text at least once by the time he starts on the design. During the process of the design, he forgets that the text must be read by someone, someday, and makes the design the first priority. This, of course, leads to a pretty site that is only accessed once, since content is what brings them back.
The web designer tries to make the page absolutely 100% the same on every platform in every browser. The harder he tries, the less accessible the page becomes, beginning with static font sizes, and ending with just a huge image with text on it.
Note: I used "he" whenever referring to the web designer for simplicity's sake. I am perfectly aware that there can be female web designers as well. I even know a good one.
Opera has some good features implemented to solve some of these problems. Namely:
Two document modes - user and document. Both are customizeable, and the following things can be turned on and off for each:
Document CSS.
Document font/color.
User CSS (a separate.css file stored locally that can be inserted into pages. IE also has this, but it isn't easy to toggle. Mozilla should have this by the time it's released.)
User font/color.
Tables.
These modes are toggled with one click or keypress, and are set separately on each document window. The default mode may also be set.
The font sizes for most standard HTML elements (Normal text, H1-H7, PRE, etc.) can be customized. The percentage font increase for each font size is also customizeable.
Images can be toggled with one or two keypresses/clicks. There are three modes - all, cached only, and none.
Zoom.
It would be wonderful if Mozilla, Konqueror, or another big browser implemented these...
Also, none of the browsers I've seen currently implement the W3C recommendation for alternating stylesheets. (Basically, this means that the document specifies several different styles and the useragent lets the user pick one.)
Please, moderate this up through the roof, so that the question is forwarded on to him. (Hint: Not this post, its parent.) IIRC, this is the third Web Design God(tm) that Slashdot has interviewed, and they all seem to get famous for pages like this.
While I see nothing wrong with pages with annoying javascript and bright colors that hurt my eyes -- there's always the Back button -- I do see something wrong with these people ignoring the standards. Most of his code is pretty clean, so it wouldn't take much work to fix the five or ten errors that the W3C validator returns.
I'm tired of web designers that think, "Hey, it works in MSIE and Netscape, who cares about the ohters?" This is especially amusing since one of the first links on the page is to the Web Standards Project. *sigh*
And unless Word2k is extremely perverted, it will save the document in the same format it was read in.
It's really perverted. But Word 97 did it as well. Just open an.rtf, and then save it - without making any changes. Poof! It is now 5 times bigger, and can't be read by WordPad.
Here's an example: test.rtf - "Hello, World!" in 10-point Arial font.
Before: 133 bytes.
After: 2,699 bytes.
Same story: test.html - "Hello, World!", no font specified.
Before: 165 bytes. No parsing errors.
After: 2,054 bytes. 4 parsing errors.
--
Re:iMovie punches? Not quite
on
iMovie For Free
·
· Score: 1
***WARNING*** INCREDIBLY OFF-TOPIC POST ***WARNING***
A program should never be an exact copy of its version on another platform. Different platforms have different design ideas and different standards. I've seen a few apps (namely CodeWarrior (especially the Palm version, but also the Java version), QuickTime) that are awesome on the Mac get ported to Windows and become horrible. Why? The developers tried to make the program be the same exact way in Windows as it is on the Mac.
That just isn't right. MacOS and Windows have different widgets. MacOS has one static menu bar - Windows has a menu bar for each window. MacOS uses the many different windows approach, Windows uses the one window approach. (MDI is an excellent idea, by the way. I love Opera.) And so on.
Now that I've begun... does anyone feel this way about Mozilla? It follows the Web standards beautifully, but I feel that the idea of using their own widgets isn't the best solution... Under MacOS, the window has its own menu bar, breaking the whole concept of the MacOS interface. Under Windows, the widgets don't respond well to common input, constantly lose focus, etc. I haven't tested it under Linux yet, since I don't use it a lot. I'll test it under MacOS X soon. I realize that the software isn't exactly in the final stages yet, but I loathe the thought that this maybe how it will stay.
First of all, this is exactly what Napster asked for. They said that they would ban specific users that have been fingered by the copyright owners, and that's exactly what Metallica's lawyers did. They just did it on a large scale.
Second, please remember that Metallica and Dr. Dre are only misguided artists. They have been brainwashed by the suits to think that all these evil hackers (media definition) are stealing their hard-earned money. These particular artists were picked to cover the most bases, because they seem to have (had) a lot of fans. I don't like either one much (and not because of this), but I know that a lot of people do like at least one of them.
Oh please... spare me. The donations are made to maintain stability, and because the countries owe the American banks money. It is done in the interest of the fat men who own everyone. If not, it is done to improve the politician's public appearance.
One can bitch about Dreamweaver, or one can easily adjust to its shortcomings. Which one do you choose? "<? ?>" or "<% %>"? I don't see a major difference...
The best way to get Dreamweaver to play nice with PHP is to use <% and %> tags and then enable the ASP tags setting in PHP. (PHP will recognize the <% %> syntax, while Dreamweaver will think it's ASP and ignore it.)
Slashdot Mirror
--
Internet JUNKBUSTER
TCP connection to 'news.cnet.com' failed: Bad file descriptor.
--
--
Thank you for that sig. It made me realize that I'm reading Slashdot at 04:13 and that I should go to bed. Thanks. :)
--
--
--
Is it just me, or does something have to be done about the black background?! It makes selecting text in Netscape hellish, because Netscape thinks the text is sitting on black background (when it is actually sitting on the white table.)
--
All laws are supposed to exist to make the peoples' lives better, usually by protecting their rights. If it helps corporations as well -- good -- but that is not the primary objective. The copyright laws were put into effect to encourage corporations and artists to provide more works of art for the people. The DMCA helps corporations at the expense of the people. Any questions?
--
- The web designer knows best.
- The web designer has read the text at least once by the time he starts on the design. During the process of the design, he forgets that the text must be read by someone, someday, and makes the design the first priority. This, of course, leads to a pretty site that is only accessed once, since content is what brings them back.
- The web designer tries to make the page absolutely 100% the same on every platform in every browser. The harder he tries, the less accessible the page becomes, beginning with static font sizes, and ending with just a huge image with text on it.
Note: I used "he" whenever referring to the web designer for simplicity's sake. I am perfectly aware that there can be female web designers as well. I even know a good one.Opera has some good features implemented to solve some of these problems. Namely:
- Two document modes - user and document. Both are customizeable, and the following things can be turned on and off for each:
- The font sizes for most standard HTML elements (Normal text, H1-H7, PRE, etc.) can be customized. The percentage font increase for each font size is also customizeable.
- Images can be toggled with one or two keypresses/clicks. There are three modes - all, cached only, and none.
- Zoom.
It would be wonderful if Mozilla, Konqueror, or another big browser implemented these...- Document CSS.
- Document font/color.
- User CSS (a separate
.css file stored locally that can be inserted into pages. IE also has this, but it isn't easy to toggle. Mozilla should have this by the time it's released.) - User font/color.
- Tables.
These modes are toggled with one click or keypress, and are set separately on each document window. The default mode may also be set.Also, none of the browsers I've seen currently implement the W3C recommendation for alternating stylesheets. (Basically, this means that the document specifies several different styles and the useragent lets the user pick one.)
--
While I see nothing wrong with pages with annoying javascript and bright colors that hurt my eyes -- there's always the Back button -- I do see something wrong with these people ignoring the standards. Most of his code is pretty clean, so it wouldn't take much work to fix the five or ten errors that the W3C validator returns.
I'm tired of web designers that think, "Hey, it works in MSIE and Netscape, who cares about the ohters?" This is especially amusing since one of the first links on the page is to the Web Standards Project. *sigh*
--
It's really perverted. But Word 97 did it as well. Just open an .rtf, and then save it - without making any changes. Poof! It is now 5 times bigger, and can't be read by WordPad.
Here's an example: test.rtf - "Hello, World!" in 10-point Arial font.
- Before: 133 bytes.
- After: 2,699 bytes.
Same story: test.html - "Hello, World!", no font specified.--
A program should never be an exact copy of its version on another platform. Different platforms have different design ideas and different standards. I've seen a few apps (namely CodeWarrior (especially the Palm version, but also the Java version), QuickTime) that are awesome on the Mac get ported to Windows and become horrible. Why? The developers tried to make the program be the same exact way in Windows as it is on the Mac.
That just isn't right. MacOS and Windows have different widgets. MacOS has one static menu bar - Windows has a menu bar for each window. MacOS uses the many different windows approach, Windows uses the one window approach. (MDI is an excellent idea, by the way. I love Opera.) And so on.
Now that I've begun... does anyone feel this way about Mozilla? It follows the Web standards beautifully, but I feel that the idea of using their own widgets isn't the best solution... Under MacOS, the window has its own menu bar, breaking the whole concept of the MacOS interface. Under Windows, the widgets don't respond well to common input, constantly lose focus, etc. I haven't tested it under Linux yet, since I don't use it a lot. I'll test it under MacOS X soon. I realize that the software isn't exactly in the final stages yet, but I loathe the thought that this maybe how it will stay.
--
Too bad. <pout>
--
--
- The suits were filed at nearly the same time.
- They are being represented by the same lawyer.
- They are both suing Napster, with the same demands.
Though I am not saying that they are innocent...--
Second, please remember that Metallica and Dr. Dre are only misguided artists. They have been brainwashed by the suits to think that all these evil hackers (media definition) are stealing their hard-earned money. These particular artists were picked to cover the most bases, because they seem to have (had) a lot of fans. I don't like either one much (and not because of this), but I know that a lot of people do like at least one of them.
--
--
--
ftp://ftp.kddlabs.co.jp/.9/sourceforge/psxdev/psx
--
--
Meant to link this.
--
Sounds familiar, no? :)
--
--
--
(I had to re-read it a few times to get it...)
--